To receive any apologies
for absence and notices of substitutions from Borough members under
Standing Order 39.

Minutes:

Apologies for absence were received from
county councillor Bernie Muir and from borough councillors, Kate
Chinn and Hannah Dalton. Borough
councillors, Vince Romagnuolo and Tella Wormington substituted for
them respectively.

The Chairman reported that the additional
resurfacing agreed as part of the winter programme has now been
completed and inspected. He thanked the
maintenance engineer and the central maintenance team for their
hard work in achieving this.

He reported that there has been no improvement
in funding for schools following a Government review and that
Schools are being asked to continue to support Special Educational
Needs pupils.

The Local/Joint Committee Chairmen’s
Group had recently had a flooding workshop and the officers
involved had been invited to the next informal meeting of the
Committee to do a similar session for members.

Noted that the results of the countryside
review had now been published.

The Chairman reminded members that the County
Council currently has five consultations open on potential service
changes and that responses should be submitted by early January
2019.

To answer any questions or
receive a statement from any member of the public who lives, works
or studies in the Surrey County Council area in accordance with
Standing Order 69. Notice should be
given in writing or by e-mail to the
Partnership Committee Officer at least by noon four working days
before the meeting.

25 questions and statements were
received. The questions and responses
are set out in the agenda and supplementary agenda for the
meeting. The following additional
questions were asked:

Question 1: Does the Committee take the latest traffic
data into account and are levels of NO2
monitored?Response:
All accident data supplied by the police is taken into
account. However, only data on
accidents resulting in injury is collected as it is not a
requirement to report collision only accidents. Monitoring of air quality is a matter for the
Borough Council and the question should be directed to them.

Question 4:Many people are affected by the increased
congestion in Rosebank arising from the closure of the alternative
access to St Joseph’s School.
What are the plans to alleviate this?Response: There is very
little that can be done to improve congestion in either Whitehorse
Drive of Rosebank. The priority is to
keep traffic moving on the primary routes and these roads would not
be a priority for alleviating congestion. Any improvements would also result in more people
attempting to drive to the School so sustainable transport is being
encouraged. The earliest the matter
could be considered is at the March meeting of the Committee to
allow transport patterns to be established. The situation at this site is similar to that
experienced in the area of many schools across Surrey.

Question 12: Was the county
council insurance team consulted when this response was
prepares?Response: That was not thought
necessary as there would be no liability in this
situation. Road users are liable for
their own choices in parking safely and supervising vulnerable
passengers.

Question 16: What justification is there for relaxing
parking restrictions to allow children from outside the Borough to
access the school at local taxpayers’ expense?Response: Parking reviews are fully funded by the
surplus arising from parking enforcement activity and is not funded
via the council tax.

Question 23: There are many grandparents who pick up and
drop off children at the school and also parents taking multiple
children. Would relaxing parking in
Abelea Green to provide additional park
and stride opportunities help them access the school more
easily?Response: No work has been done
to establish how many parking spaces could potentially be provided
in this area and whether, if they were provided, there would be
sufficient to make a material difference to the situation.

Decline the
requested change to parking provision in St Margaret Drive and St
Elizabeth Drive at the present time, as insufficient time has
passed for new travel patterns to St Joseph’s School to have
settled down, without prejudice to any future consideration of this
request in the future.

Reasons: To allow travel patterns to become
established before changes are made in the area.

Minutes:

Declarations of Interest:None

Officers attending:Nick Healey, Area
Highways Manager

Petitions, Public
Questions/Statements:2 petitions were
received

The Head teacher of St
Joseph’s School presented the petition for parking
restrictions on St Margaret Drive and St Elizabeth Drive to be
modified to allow parents to park and stride to access the
school. She expressed regret at having
to submit the petition, but felt that there was a responsibility to
keep the children safe. The school
already has supervised drop off before and after school and has
staggered start and end times. However
there are a number of disabled pupils and also elderly and working
parents who need easy access to the school. 60% of pupils already use sustainable transport
options. She expressed concern at the
ability of emergency services to access the school following a
recent incident early in the morning when it took 30 minutes for an
ambulance to arrive. The roads in
Abelea Green are wide and safe and
could allow children to walk safely from there to the
school.

Nick Bathurst, representing the
residents of Abelea Green who are
opposed to any change in parking restrictions in the area,
acknowledged that the recent dispute had damaged relationships with
the school, but he looked forward to improved relations now that
the matter had been resolved. He felt
that the petition should be considered on its merits, taking into
account practicality and safety. The
roads in question are narrow cul-de-sacs and any relaxation in
restrictions would allow access to any vehicle not just those
wishing to use the parking spaces to access the school. Vehicles
will be looking for spaces and trying to turn round which will lead
to increased danger for children. He
commended alternative suggestions such as improvements to the
phasing of the lights on Rosebank.

Member
discussion–key points

The divisional member felt that it was too
early to consider any changes at this point and that the changed
access arrangements need more time to bed down. She proposed an amended recommendation which was
seconded by Cllr Teasdale. On a vote it
was unanimously:

Resolved:

To Decline the requested change to parking
provision in St Margaret Drive and St Elizabeth Drive at the
present time, as insufficient time has passed for new travel
patterns to St Joseph’s School to have settled down, without
prejudice to any future consideration of this request in the
future.

Reasons: To allow travel patterns to become
established before changes are made in the area.

All Members present are required to declare, at this point in
the meeting or as soon as possible thereafter

(i)Any disclosable
pecuniary interests and / or

(ii)Other interests arising under the Code of Conduct in
respect of any item(s) of business being considered at this
meeting

NOTES:

Members are reminded that they must not participate
in any item where they have a disclosable pecuniary interest

As well as an interest of the Member, this includes
any interest, of which the Member is aware, that relates to the
Member’s spouse or civil partner (or any person with whom the
Member is living as a spouse or civil partner)

Members with a significant personal interest may
participate in the discussion and vote on that matter unless that
interest could be reasonably regarded as prejudicial.

To receive any written questions from Members
under Standing Order 47. Notice
should be given in writing to the Partnership Committee Officer by
12.00 noon four working days before the meeting.

Minutes:

One question was received and the response is
included in the supplementary agenda.
Cllr Arthur asked the following additional question:

Will the buses being temporarily rerouted
return to their usual route whist the work in the town centre is
suspended for the Christmas period.
Officers responded that the buses will remain on their current
routes for the duration of the work to avoid confusion for
passengers. Once the work is completed
there will be a review of bus stops and stands in the town
centre.

This report summarises progress with the Local
Committee’s programme of Highways works for the current
Financial Year 2018-19.

Committee is asked to agree the strategy for
allocation of Joint Committee Highways budgets for next Financial
Year 2019-20. Further Committee is
asked to agree a programme of Integrated Transport Schemes (ITS
schemes) for next Financial Year 2019-20.

(i)The strategy for allocation of Joint Committee
Highways budgets for next Financial Year 2019-20 as set out in
Table 4of the report;

(ii)To authorise the Area Highway Manager to advertise
the statutory notice for a new Zebra Crossing in Waterloo Road, as
shown in Annex A of the report, and to implement this new Zebra
Crossing using s106 funding arising out of the redevelopment of
Epsom Station;

(iii)The programme of ITS schemes for next Financial Year
2019-20 as set out in Table 6 of the report;

(iv)To the removal of seven schemes from the
prioritisation list in Annex B, the scheme at Fair Green to be
retained;

(v)To authorise the Area Highway Manager in
consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and relevant
Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to
deliver the agreed programmes.

(vi)To note with disappointment that for 2019/2020
the Local Highway budget will, once again, be cut which can only
lead to a reduced highway maintenance service to the residents of
Epsom & Ewell.

Reasons: Recommendations are made to facilitate
development of Committee’s 2019-20 Highways programmes, while
at the same time ensuring that the Chairman, Vice Chairman and
relevant Divisional Members are fully and appropriately involved in
any detailed considerations.

Committee is asked to provide the necessary
authorisation to deliver its programmes of work in consultation
with the Chairman, Vice Chairman and relevant Divisional Member
without the need to revert to the Committee as a whole.

Minutes:

Declarations of
Interest:None

Officers
attending:Nick Healey, Area Highways
Manager

Petitions, Public
Questions/Statements:None

Member
discussion–key points

Members would like to see the
new layby proposed near Chuters Grove
progressed as the current situation is leading to
congestion.

The ward member thanked the
officers for the proposals for West Park Road which meet most of
the residents expectations. He asked
whether the double yellow lines requested would be part of this
work. The Area Highways Manager
responded that they are not part of this package, but he would
check to see if they had been included in the parking review and
respond to the member. He confirmed
that other issues would be considered and would be addressed within
the limits of the funding available from the developer. Anything outstanding would need to be considered
by the Committee and prioritised for further funding.

Cllr Kington expressed
disappointment that the funding allocated to the Committee had been
reduced again as this is used to address issues which are important
for residents. He proposed an
additional recommendation to this effect which was seconded by Cllr
Teasdale.

The divisional member queried
the justification of a cost of £35,640 for the proposed bus
shelter on Woodcote Green. The Area
Highways Manager would ask for a breakdown of the cost from the
passenger transport team, but the decision to allocate this funding
had been made by Epsom & Ewell Borough Council.

It was noted that in relation
to the Fair Green scheme, the delay in response from the Borough
Council was as a result of a miscommunication. SCC Officers were now in contact with the correct
Borough officers and were awaiting a reply. It was therefore agreed that this scheme should be
retained.

Noted that the businesses in
Waterloo Road were concerned at the loss of parking associated with
the proposal for a new zebra crossing and that local members may no
longer be in favour of this proposal.
It was agreed to proceed with the recommendation to give the
necessary authority should the proposal be taken
forward.

Resolved:

(i)That the strategy for allocation of Joint Committee
Highways budgets for next Financial Year 2019-20 as set out in
Table 4of the report, be agreed;

(ii)To authorise the Area Highway Manager to advertise
the statutory notice for a new Zebra Crossing in Waterloo Road, as
shown in Annex A of the report, and to implement this new Zebra
Crossing using s106 funding arising out of the redevelopment of
Epsom Station;

(iii)That the programme of ITS schemes for next Financial
Year 2019-20 as set out in Table 6 of the report be
agreed;

(iv)To remove seven schemes from the prioritisation list
in Annex B, the scheme at Fair Green to be retained;

(v)To authorise the Area Highway Manager in
consultation with the Chairman, Vice Chairman, and relevant
Divisional Member(s) to undertake all necessary procedures to
deliver the agreed programmes.

Agreeing priorities and securing funding for
transport infrastructure investment is key to delivering Surrey
County Council’s Community Vision for Surrey in 2030.

To facilitate this, and as part of the
statutory Local Transport Plan, Surrey County Council produces
Local Transport Strategies for each district and borough. The
current Local Transport Strategy for Epsom & Ewell was
published in 2014. It is expected that the next update will take
place in 2020, so that it may respond to transport requirements
arising from Epsom & Ewell’s Local Plan. Thereafter the
Local Transport Strategy would be reviewed on a three year
cycle.

Surrey County Council also maintains Forward
Programmes of proposed transport schemes that would deliver each
borough and district’s Local Transport Strategy, subject to
funding and feasibility. The Epsom & Ewell Forward Programme is
presented to Committee for approval, and approval to publish
online, as part of a proposed new regime of publishing an
up-to-date Forward Programme for each district and borough
annually.

(i)
To note the timeframes and approach for updating the
Borough’s Local Transport Strategy and for future updates to
the Committee regarding the Forward Programme;

(ii)
The revised version of the Forward Programme (Annex 1) of the
report, subject to the amendments discussed at the
meeting.

Reasons: A
confirmed timeline and process for working with the Local Committee
to develop and maintain future Local Transport Strategies and
Forward Programmes will ensure the Local Committee and officers are
well positioned to work together.

An agreed Forward Programme will allow Members
and officers to progress with a common understanding of proposed
transport schemes for the borough (based upon the existing Local
Transport Strategy, and ahead of decisions relating to a new Local
Plan)

If agreed, the Forward Programme would be
published online, giving members of the public sight of the latest
proposals and progress

Minutes:

Declarations of
Interest:None

Officers
attending:Steve Howard, Transport
Strategy Project Manager

Petitions, Public
Questions/Statements:None

Member
discussion–key points

Noted that the Borough Council
had committed £500k towards a bid to South West Railways for
step free access at Stoneleigh Station. A decision on whether this
is successful is expected in March. The
Strategy document would be updated to reflect this.

The following amendments to the
strategy were put forward:

·ETC-1 – this should reflect the additional
funding provided by the Borough Council to complete the
scheme;

·The resilience scheme for the High Street and
Quadrant junction should be added if guidance permits;

·The reference to CIL funding for the Kiln Lane
scheme should be removed. It was noted
that the Kiln Lane scheme is an SCC Cabinet approved scheme and
would need Cabinet agreement for it to be removed from the
strategy;

·It was suggested that Network Rail should be added
as a potential source of funding for painting of railway bridges as
these are their assets;

·Improved cycle security and CCTV at Epsom Station
funded by Network Rail should be added to RA1;

Resolved:

(i)
To note the timeframes and approach for updating the
Borough’s Local Transport Strategy and for future updates to
the Committee regarding the Forward Programme;

(ii)
That the revised version of the Forward Programme (Annex 1) of the
report be agreed, subject to the amendments outlined above.

Reasons: A
confirmed timeline and process for working with the Local Committee
to develop and maintain future Local Transport Strategies and
Forward Programmes will ensure the Local Committee and officers are
well positioned to work together.

An agreed Forward Programme will allow Members
and officers to progress with a common understanding of proposed
transport schemes for the borough (based upon the existing Local
Transport Strategy, and ahead of decisions relating to a new Local
Plan)

If agreed, the Forward Programme would be
published online, giving members of the public sight of the latest
proposals and progress

This item provides an update on previous
decisions and actions agreed by the Committee. The Committee are
asked to agree that the items marked as complete are removed from
the tracker.

Minutes:

The Committee noted the
progress made with items in the tracker and agreed that those
marked as complete could be removed, with the exception of the item
relating to hospital appointments. It
was agreed that the Chairman would write to the Chief Executive of
the Trust seeking a response. The item
relating to Fair Green would be updated.